Changing Connotations and the Evolution of the Effect of Wording: Labeling Asylum Seekers in a Political Campaign

Abstract

This paper investigates the moderating role of public discourse in the effects of labeling asylum seekers (as “immigrants” vs. “refugees”) on attitudes toward asylum policy. The study relies on a series of survey experiments conducted in Hungary, in a period when asylum policy suddenly became a highly salient issue there. Originally, respondents were much more solidaristic toward “refugees” than “immigrants,” but the public discussion on asylum policy suppressed this wording effect—mainly by contaminating the concept of “refugee.” By using data on news reports and respondents’ media use, the analysis also looks at the roots of these changes. In particular, it presents evidence on the moderating role of converging connotations of different labels on the effect of wording.

Migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees: Different labels for immigrants influence attitudes through perceived benefits in nine countries

“…People choose distinct sources of information that report about immigration in radically different ways (e.g., private blogs, social media), apart from the traditional, mainstream mass media whose content could be more easily tracked (e.g., Arlt & Wolling, 2016). Janky (2019) employed an experimental design to mimic the effect of mass media and high occurrence of labels for immigrants in public space. The participants either read a short news report about the refugee crisis (high salience condition) or they did not (low salience condition).…”

“…The construction of connotations of distinct terms is sensitive to sociocultural and historical contexts, preventing the terms from acquiring single, fixed, and universal meanings that would allow for easy comparisons across time and cultural contexts (Ceobanu & Escandell, 2010; Merolla et al., 2013). Likewise, it is of utmost importance to employ longitudinal designs to track the change of connotations of specific terms and associated attitudes, especially in times of rapid social change (Janky, 2019).…”

“…A study that compared attitudes towards 'refugees' and 'immigrants' at the beginning of, and during, the so-called 'refugee crisis' supports this interpretation (Janky, 2019). At its beginning in 2015, people understood the content of the term 'refugee' as a person in a dire need of help and subsequently were motivated to support refugees more than immigrants (De Coninck, 2020; 2015 data from Janky, 2019) or asylum seekers (Kotzur et al, 2017). However, people's solidarity was dwindling as the refugee crisis unfolded (2016 data from Janky, 2019;Wyszynski et al, 2020) and public discourse negatively contaminated the meaning of 'refugees' by equating them with people without humanitarian reasons for leaving their countries (as illustrated by the widely used term 'economic refugees'; Janky, 2019).…”

“…This shift in meaning may be a consequence of confusing the terms 'refugees' , 'asylum seekers' , and 'migrants' in the public space. A study that compared attitudes towards 'refugees' and 'immigrants' at the beginning of, and during, the so-called 'refugee crisis' supports this interpretation (Janky, 2019). At its beginning in 2015, people understood the content of the term 'refugee' as a person in a dire need of help and subsequently were motivated to support refugees more than immigrants (De Coninck, 2020; 2015 data from Janky, 2019) or asylum seekers (Kotzur et al, 2017).…”

“…Importantly, a series of experiments conducted at different time points (in 2015–2016) in Hungary suggests a crucial role of time and media exposure in the effect of distinct labels on attitudes (Janky, 2019). While in 2015, at the beginning of the so‐called ‘refugee crisis’, Hungarian respondents felt more solidarity towards ‘refugees’ than ‘immigrants’; later on in 2016, this difference between labels was no longer detectable.…”